On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:12:35 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> Tab, with all respect, my opinion is that if something is not in a W3C
> spec then it is out of scope (for this proposal and this discussion).
> Your opinion appears to be that anything that can or will go into a user
> agent is in scope. I see no way to bridge that difference, so I will not
> attempt to further justify mine or Cox's position on this subject.
[...]
> If I can answer any further technical questions about these
> requirements, I am more than happy to do so. In some cases, I may be
> unable to answer certain questions due to license or business
> constraints. But I'll respond when I can and tell you when I can't.
You're asking the group not to focus on the most likely usage scenario of
the proposal (including deployment by company you represent), and only
focus on narrowly-defined scope of the spec that has no purpose without
CDMs.
Most important components dependent on this spec ("robust" CDMs) don't
have precise requirements outlined, may not even be possible to discuss
publicly, and Cox and Netflix cannot commit to supporting the only
keysystem that this spec mentions.
Without complete, reliable information backing this proposal the group
ends up arguing about vague promises, guesses, fears and hypothetical
scenarios instead. That doesn't seem like a good way to create a solid
technical solution.
While W3C has created some purely theoretical specs in the past, IMHO the
good specs were based on actual implementation experience, so I urge the
WG not to proceed with this proposal until at least one CDM that meets the
(so far unwritten) requirements is prototyped.
I think it would be irresponsible for W3C to accept a proposal only by
analyzing the narrow scope it defines for itself, without looking how it
fits the larger picture, what implications it has for the Web as a whole,
and whether actual real-world usage (not merely theoretical
spec-lawyering) is going to help W3C's mission.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński